Originally Posted by Copperfield

I notice you never even try to explain why they decided to fly planes into your beloved skyline. It's as though you believe they just woke up one day and figured, "What the fuck? We ain't got nothing better to do."

I guess it's just something sand niggers do huh? Violence against us is "evil-doing" but violence against them is just teaching those wayward, lost sand children how to properly behave in our world. It’s a charity thing right?

I think you will find that what you call "isolationism" is actually just a few folks who have no emotional stake in the empire.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with killing people who deserve it (never have). Even then though I understand that the killed often have a story and their own (sometimes perfectly acceptable) reasons for making it onto the "deserving list". It's a respect thing. I have no particular animosity towards Arabs in general (I work with one). I simply understand that we kill them only to maintain the empire which to me is a pretty poor, even cowardly reason (certainly not worthy of "deserving status"). I can definitely understand how this might cause us to make it onto their "deserving list".

While I don't support any particular desire to saw off my infidel head, I understand why some of them might want to.

Funny thing that I've observed about war. Both sides always believe they are righteous. Sometimes both sides are. Sometimes neither.

First, stop putting words in my mouth, I said nothing justifying their attacks on us or our attacks on them. I was just pointing out Justin's absurdity that we don't have enemies more than willing to kill you, me or him regardless - they don't care if you live in magic pony land.

Whether they or you deserved to die is not germane to the fact that others are protecting your right to free speech with their lives. What is germane is that bigots who abuse that right get people killed on all sides.

In combat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is most righteous. It's about keeping you and the guys around you alive, period.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

45% approve of Obama's handling, 48% disapprove of Romney's comments. In other words, the exact number of people who will vote for Obama no matter what. The number of people who actually know what Romney's comments were is probably extremely small, therefore many have no opinion, while many Obama supporters will disapprove without even having heard them.

What this particular incident has in common with 1980 is the similarity in approach between Carter and Obama when it came to the Iranian Revolution and the "Arab Spring", and the similar results at U.S. embassies. It is rather uncanny.

The media is, as we speak, in an unprecedented (even for them) full court press to save Obama and the Democratic Party. They're not even attempting to be journalists anymore. They're asking no tough questions of the Administration on the collapse of its foreign policy, and instead trying to make Romney the news. They're not acting like they think they're winning. They're acting like they're desperately panicking because they know they're losing. All caution has been thrown to the wind, and they don't even care about their credibility anymore. When the dust settles, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News is the only media outlet left standing, and ends up being the new standard of objective journalism.

1. Only 26% of Americans who have tracked the events approve of Mitt Romney's comments. You ignored that. A 48-26 split against a pol indicates trouble. The 26% undecided would have to split almost completely in the favor of that pol (let us say to 44-49) for the apparent bungle to be forgiven.

2. It is impossible to spin the comments to something positive. They are factually deficient, to put it mildly. I expect wise politicians to wait until they have a preponderance of facts from which to make a decision At that Mitt Romney failed. He took a cheap shot at the President and showed no sign that he would do something similarly unwise if President. Maybe he can learn from his mistake, but the risk that he won't make a similar mistake as President is not one that I want to take.

3. This is 2012, early in a Crisis Era. Although decisive action will eventually be necessary and inevitable, it had better be the generally-right action. One can be decisively wrong and provoke the wrong Crisis. A good leader shows the ability to build consensus... and Mitt Romney fails at that. As for the Arab Spring -- it toppled an octogenarian leader who had made a mess of his country, a nasty tyrant infamous for support for terrorism and support for thuggish causes, and a corrupt septuagenarian who had established a single-Party state. It was inevitable.

A wise leader knows what battles to avoid. Preservation of dictators of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya would have been mistakes.

4. The news media are far from unified in purpose. Most seem to try to ride the winning horse.

5. If FoX Newspeak Channel were the only media channel left standing -- America would be a nasty place to live at least for politics. FoX acts like a totalitarian news channel.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Since I didn't suggest anything of the kind, this means you were engaging in a straw man.



Actually, we can. It would take nothing more than telling the oil companies to stuff it when they lobby for military action to protect their access to Middle East oil.

I believe it's a little more complicated than that. Let's just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In other words, you have a double standard. I wonder, does it apply only to Al Qaeda or also to Saddam Hussein? Was he a poor, innocent "brown person" unjustly persecuted by the evil, racist United States?

I once said that Ernst Kaltenbrunner, highest-ranking survivor of the apparatus of mass murder in Nazi Germany was unjustly hanged for his crimes. Burning at the stake would have been more appropriate for him. (He was in charge of the concentration camps and extermination camps).

The United States is no better than the choices of its electorate, and when it comes up with a President like Dubya its moral credibility is compromised. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with race. The vainglory, dishonesty, and corruption of the President of the US at the time? Of course.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's the link to the Mother Jones catch -

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser



Some might compare this to Obama's fubar with San Francisco donors about those clutching their guns, etc. but the people he was talking about would never have voted for him anyway. People on SS and Medicare that might have voted for Romney however will have second thoughts - at least the ones with still functioning brains.

I can't see how he survives this. People were already abandoning him over last week; this has to be completely demoralizing to the professionals running his campaign leaving them with the question of what's next? It will be interesting to see who sticks around to turn off the lights; they'll likely never get a campaign job again.

Romney just came out to attempt damage control. I think he made it worse.

They must be in total panic.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yes, projection...although I waver between thinking it's an unconscious psychological disorder common to the left, or a conscious tactic. Maybe they are aware of all of their negative traits, and intentionally try to tar those they have deemed their enemies with the same traits in an attempt to level the playing field and muddy the water. But it happens so much that it is certainly at least a reflex at this point. It's kind of amusing watching them twist themselves into knots when they try to accuse libertarians of being authoritarians, for example.

Projection has a definition in psychology and psychiatry -- in essence attribution of one's own faults to an enemy. A prime example is of a bank robber who rationalized armed robberies of banks to the idea that "the banks are the biggest crooks". Adolf Hitler practically stole his conspiratorial method for seizing power and using it from the infamous forgery Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zionism that purported to show a Jewish plot of world domination. Racists who attribute animalistic tendencies in 'lesser' races often struggle with their own tendencies.

It falls on all parts of the political spectrum -- but at least the center-left is more sophisticated in its reading and study, and much more introspective. Such may not prevent the pathology of psychological projection completely -- but people who fail to analyze their own drives and fears are much more common on the center-right than on the center-left... and really common in extremists of all kinds.

... Libertarians consider themselves the antitheses of authoritarians, but they have yet to contemplate all of the consequences of a libertarian utopia. The ignore the possibility of conflicts of freedom and the possibility that some will use their great power to cause people in gross need to sell out their freedom for survival. Weak government is not freedom; freedom requires government as an enforcer of freedom. It took the strongest government of the time -- the British Empire -- to put an end to the slave trade through military force.

I think the simplest way to put it is that they have a certain mindset, and everybody they know is the same, so they assume everyone else is the same as well. The reason why that phenomenon happens on the left is because they have made it nearly possible to completely isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints if they choose to do so. They control the media and the educational system, and the unelected sectors of government. People who are not in the small minority of affluent white leftists have no such luxury, being bombarded daily with left wing propaganda, priorities, and world views from the media.

Maybe we better know the Other Side than you think. We know the vices all too well. We know how flawed humanity can be, and that even the best of intentions can go awry.

That is the greatest weakness of the left - their lack of self-awareness, and their ignorance of the people they're seeking to control. They're done in by their elitist cocoon.

Contradicted!

Originally Posted by playwrite

If you can recall, the original question you posed was how the embassy protects you.

Your playhouse mate, Justin, second your confusion. I responded to him here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...206#post444206

You can follow his attempt at responding that leads, as typical, to magic pony land. Please feel free to provide some kind of response a little less pathetic.

And you didn't give him the answer either. Had I asked something along the lines of, "How does the ambassador to Libya help serve the empire?" then fuck yeah, he did an adequate job. Please don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that he represented his masters well. One can't dominate the world without various agents wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. But this wasn't what I asked. I asked how the ambassador to Libya was protecting my first amendment rights (Libya being that grave threat to the constitution that they are).

Originally Posted by playwrite

First, stop putting words in my mouth, I said nothing justifying their attacks on us or our attacks on them. I was just pointing out Justin's absurdity that we don't have enemies more than willing to kill you, me or him regardless - they don't care if you live in magic pony land.

Whether they or you deserved to die is not germane to the fact that others are protecting your right to free speech with their lives. What is germane is that bigots who abuse that right get people killed on all sides.

In combat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is most righteous. It's about keeping you and the guys around you alive, period.

Enemies don't just fall from the sky. I mean it happens but it's a really, really rare event. Usually there is plenty of provocation from both sides. Unfortunately once you get to something on the scale of nation vs. nation, the guys that do the provocating aren't the ones doing the fighting. Of course the difference between you and I is that while I recognize that there are a group of people who are supposed to be "protecting my rights," I understand that they are instead used for the purpose of "keeping the subjects of the empire in line." This sort of thing happens precisely because the provocateurs in those situations pilot desks.

You see, Arabs who want to kill us mostly want to kill us due to a sense of vengeance or because they believe we represent tyranny (or both). We mostly want to kill them due to a sense of entitlement or because it's profitable. Big difference there. To borrow a line from the fine feature film Aliens, "I'm not sure which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a God damn percentage."

Another difference between you and I is that I do not require nor would I ever ask anyone else to defend me or to defend my rights for me. I assure you that if my "rights" are ever actually threatened my own response will be as brutal, ruthless and violent as I deem necessary.

Some might compare this to Obama's fubar with San Francisco donors about those clutching their guns, etc. but the people he was talking about would never have voted for him anyway.

Romney was talking about people who wouldn't vote for him, too. The difference is that Obama was talking about how his policies would help them. But his "job is not to worry about" the 47% [sic] who are "dependent on government." You know, like the people now collecting SS, veteran's benefits.

In truth, every working person pays taxes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... Libertarians consider themselves the antitheses of authoritarians, but they have yet to contemplate all of the consequences of a libertarian utopia. The ignore the possibility of conflicts of freedom and the possibility that some will use their great power to cause people in gross need to sell out their freedom for survival. Weak government is not freedom; freedom requires government as an enforcer of freedom. It took the strongest government of the time -- the British Empire -- to put an end to the slave trade through military force.

There is some really awesome and over-the-top irony in this paragraph. I have to give you some heart felt kudos for actually believing this one.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Back on topic, Romney has self-destructed again. The surreptitious video of him writing off nearly half the population because they see themselves as victims depending on government entitlements will be the big news story tomorrow and for some time. Nice of some one to let us know what he really thinks.

Wait.... There is one of those... Election things coming up isn't there! Oh, oh! I must pick out an outfit for "the big day."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you don't hold the US to a higher standard yourself?

Nope. I believe there is one standard for right and wrong, and it applies equally to everyone.

Why not, if we are the uniquely good nation you and yours always insist we are? That seems to be a prety high standard to me.

After all, it was your demi-god who invoked the shining city on the hill meme, and you cite the man all the time.

Reagan's statement was an aspiration, and an elevation of certain past principles that the country stood for, particularly freedom and opportunity. He was quoting John Stuart Mill, an icon of (classical) liberalism. He was also implying that the nation should lead by example. I don't remember if he said it this way, but the notion was, "we were once great and can be again".

I don't believe America is uniquely good. The Boomer right has an obsession with "American exceptionalism" that to me makes no sense. The original idea, stated by the founders, repeated by Abraham Lincoln, and so on, was that the creation of the United States had been an act of Divine Providence, giving humanity a fresh start on a new continent, and an opportunity to prove that liberty and self-government were possible.

However, as John Adams rightly noted, the government they designed was only suited for a religious and moral people. Self-government must start on the individual level, if it is to survive on a national level. The United States is less free, less moral, and thereby weaker than we used to be. Simply put, we are in decline because we have abandoned God. You don't become "exceptional" just because you say you are. Those who are truly exceptional don't have to say it, it's self-evident because of their actions. The actions of the people of the United States today, taken as a whole, cannot be described as exceptional, except that in some ways they are exceptionally bad. And we're getting the government (and economy) we deserve because of it.

There are some elements that remain from the founding that continue to make the country exceptional. There is still more freedom here than anywhere else in certain areas, particularly those covered by the Bill of Rights. But those freedoms are eroding by the day. It is a testimony to the genius of the system that was created that it has survived as long as it has, but when the people no longer defend or even understand it, it cannot last much longer. In the case of Obamacare, the people tried to defend their freedoms, but those in power (including a Supreme Court justice put there by the Republicans) closed ranks and thwarted them. That's a sign that freedom is disappearing, and tyranny is returning.

As for the issue at hand, there are valid arguments to be made about the rightness or wrongness of various U.S. military actions. To me, there are no valid arguments to be made that justify the actions of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. To me, the fact that others don't see it that way is a sign of moral and intellectual corruption.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And check this out:
Intel agencies warned U.S. Embassy in Egypt of possible violence


It looks to me like the attacks were planned for Sept 11, and whoever decided to broadcast the video on Sept 8 chose that date intentionally.
And the filmmaker was Egyptian, not American! Maybe they should deport his ass back over there and be done with it.

It seems as though the Egyptian government actually broadcast the video (or at least reported and promoted it) on state-run TV in advance of Sept. 11. The Egyptian government is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, thanks to Obama. They are widely thought to have dealings with Al Qaeda. Whatever group or groups have a hand in fomenting this clearly have a reach throughout the Middle East. The attack in Libya was obviously more focused than the other "protests", was probably Al Qaeda, and may have been more possible because of the continuing disarray in that country.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nope. I believe there is one standard for right and wrong, and it applies equally to everyone.

There will always be conflicts on right and wrong. The American Civil War demonstrates how severe such conflicts can be even on the conflict between property rights and personal freedom.

Reagan's statement was an aspiration, and an elevation of certain past principles that the country stood for, particularly freedom and opportunity. He was quoting John Stuart Mill, an icon of (classical) liberalism. He was also implying that the nation should lead by example. I don't remember if he said it this way, but the notion was, "we were once great and can be again".

The ancient Romans thought their gladiatorial games the purest demonstration of civic virtue. The not-so-ancient Aztec thought human sacrifice a necessity for appeasing Quetzalcoatl. Maybe our pure Devil-Take-the-Hindmost ideology will some day be an object of similar contempt.

I don't believe America is uniquely good. The Boomer right has an obsession with "American exceptionalism" that to me makes no sense. The original idea, stated by the founders, repeated by Abraham Lincoln, and so on, was that the creation of the United States had been an act of Divine Providence, giving humanity a fresh start on a new continent, and an opportunity to prove that liberty and self-government were possible.

We are not alone in that respect. We Americans were simply the first to have a responsible government. I can assure you that a political entity with a vastly-different set of values underpinning its way of life -- Saudi Arabia -- is as convinced of the Divine Inspiration of its system. One basic reality is that the American colonies could not be ruled as rigidly from London as could be Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, and that distant subjects of the British Crown had to decide much on their own -- in contrast to the situation in the Spanish colonies in which the Spanish Crown set up a hereditary elite to order people about.

In practice the distinction between whether basic human rights are gifts from God or are simply inherent in human nature (the formulation of the French Revolution) is moot. It is not faith in God that makes people good.

However, as John Adams rightly noted, the government they designed was only suited for a religious and moral people. Self-government must start on the individual level, if it is to survive on a national level. The United States is less free, less moral, and thereby weaker than we used to be. Simply put, we are in decline because we have abandoned God. You don't become "exceptional" just because you say you are. Those who are truly exceptional don't have to say it, it's self-evident because of their actions. The actions of the people of the United States today, taken as a whole, cannot be described as exceptional, except that in some ways they are exceptionally bad. And we're getting the government (and economy) we deserve because of it.

But which religion? Democracy seems to work very well in Japan, a very un-Christian country. Morality does not depend upon religion. I could also make the case that America is more moral than it used to be now that Jim Crow practices are outlawed. That Americans are less observant? No -- they are just less superstitious.

There are some elements that remain from the founding that continue to make the country exceptional. There is still more freedom here than anywhere else in certain areas, particularly those covered by the Bill of Rights. But those freedoms are eroding by the day. It is a testimony to the genius of the system that was created that it has survived as long as it has, but when the people no longer defend or even understand it, it cannot last much longer. In the case of Obamacare, the people tried to defend their freedoms, but those in power (including a Supreme Court justice put there by the Republicans) closed ranks and thwarted them. That's a sign that freedom is disappearing, and tyranny is returning.

Most free nations have imitated our Bill of Rights. The formal system of government -- whether a Presidential, semi-Presidential, or parliamentary State, or the formal presence or absence of a monarch matters far less. Obamacare, as you call it, is a start on a national system of healthcare that we got a slow start on -- slow enough that we ended up with a profits-first system complete with a for-profit bureaucracy to administer medicine. What we now have is the most expensive system in the world -- one so expensive that many American manufacturers find it more profitable to do their manufacturing in Canada.

As for the issue at hand, there are valid arguments to be made about the rightness or wrongness of various U.S. military actions. To me, there are no valid arguments to be made that justify the actions of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. To me, the fact that others don't see it that way is a sign of moral and intellectual corruption.

I can assure you that neither the terrorism of al-Qaeda nor the thug rule of Saddam Hussein was in any way liberal. The US invasion of Iraq for the glory of George W. Bush and the profits of war contractors with some desire to get command of the oil exemplifies a degradation of political morality in the US. I will go further: the attempt by the Hard Right to find the seams in our political system -- our Founding Fathers did not envision people as ruthless and potentially tyrannical as Karl Rove and Grover Norquist to exploit such seams as exist.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Back on topic, Romney has self-destructed again. The surreptitious video of him writing off nearly half the population because they see themselves as victims depending on government entitlements will be the big news story tomorrow and for some time. Nice of some one to let us know what he really thinks.

Oh, did he!

I begin to believe that if Mitt Romney has any idea of a 'moral' basis of political and economic organization is that the common man would become a willing and expendable peon on behalf of economic elites who owe such a peon nothing. But the peon owes complete subservience to the tycoon, executive, or big land-owner.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Back on topic, Romney has self-destructed again. The surreptitious video of him writing off nearly half the population because they see themselves as victims depending on government entitlements will be the big news story tomorrow and for some time. Nice of some one to let us know what he really thinks.

I'm also interested in the difference between what he says to potential donors to get more money and what he says openly. The type of people he can get money from believe what he said, and are apt to give money to a candidate who pushes such beliefs.

I'm also thinking we're getting close to October Surprise time. Months ago I predicted that Romney's tax forms aren't actually likely to be released until just before the election. If one has a real zinger, one doesn't release it too soon. One waits to release it until the impact will still be fresh when election time comes around. Yesterday's news feels like it was released a little early. Perhaps the Democrats think Romney is on the ropes just now, or that the convention bounce is fading, and this is a good time to put Romney on the defensive?

Or perhaps they can afford to open fire early as they have lots of ammunition? Would it be worth making a long series of campaign contributions to the enemy if one gets to attend private fund raisers and record what he says that the general public might not want to hear?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Romney just came out to attempt damage control. I think he made it worse.

They must be in total panic.

My brother (who runs "Mormons for Obama") pointed out that at least with "clutching their guns" Obama was expressing his frustration at trying to reach folks like that. Romney (my distant cousin, embarrassingly) is writing off several overlapping slices of the electorate that he sees as "them".

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm also interested in the difference between what he says to potential donors to get more money and what he says openly. The type of people he can get money from believe what he said, and are apt to give money to a candidate who pushes such beliefs.

I'm also thinking we're getting close to October Surprise time. Months ago I predicted that Romney's tax forms aren't actually likely to be released until just before the election. If one has a real zinger, one doesn't release it too soon. One waits to release it until the impact will still be fresh when election time comes around. Yesterday's news feels like it was released a little early. Perhaps the Democrats think Romney is on the ropes just now, or that the convention bounce is fading, and this is a good time to put Romney on the defensive?

Or perhaps they can afford to open fire early as they have lots of ammunition? Would it be worth making a long series of campaign contributions to the enemy if one gets to attend private fund raisers and record what he says that the general public might not want to hear?

It is all that they are talking about this morning. There are 50 days until the election and Romney keeps reaffirming the caracatures of him.

Right wing pundits correctly point out that there are still debates coming up. After the last few gaffes, the bar could be very high for Romney's performance, while Obama just needs to show up and not screw up too much (no guns and religion, KK?). Obama is not as good at ad-libbing, but he has gotten better. He really probably won't outright gaffe during the debates. So, Romney is left with outspending Obama in crazy ads on TV.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I believe it's a little more complicated than that. Let's just leave it at that.

You can if you don't care to demonstrate with even a shred of argument, reason or evidence that you have a clue what you're talking about. Why would it be difficult to extricate ourselves from the Middle East, assuming we're willing to abandon both our "special" relationship with Israel and control of the oil supply?

Originally Posted by The Rani

And check this out:
Intel agencies warned U.S. Embassy in Egypt of possible violence

It looks to me like the attacks were planned for Sept 11, and whoever decided to broadcast the video on Sept 8 chose that date intentionally.
And the filmmaker was Egyptian, not American! Maybe they should deport his ass back over there and be done with it.

The problem is pretty simple really. We don't know who is involved ... not even how many. I hope this is being investigated, because I suspect that this was a red herring operation intended to create the irrational behavior that erupted, but in service to what cause I can't say. It could even be a small group of Salafis. Wouldn't that be rich ... incensed by themselves. I guess they would be required to behead each other.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nope. I believe there is one standard for right and wrong, and it applies equally to everyone.

Reagan's statement was an aspiration, and an elevation of certain past principles that the country stood for, particularly freedom and opportunity. He was quoting John Stuart Mill, an icon of (classical) liberalism. He was also implying that the nation should lead by example. I don't remember if he said it this way, but the notion was, "we were once great and can be again".

I don't believe America is uniquely good. The Boomer right has an obsession with "American exceptionalism" that to me makes no sense. The original idea, stated by the founders, repeated by Abraham Lincoln, and so on, was that the creation of the United States had been an act of Divine Providence, giving humanity a fresh start on a new continent, and an opportunity to prove that liberty and self-government were possible.

However, as John Adams rightly noted, the government they designed was only suited for a religious and moral people. Self-government must start on the individual level, if it is to survive on a national level. The United States is less free, less moral, and thereby weaker than we used to be. Simply put, we are in decline because we have abandoned God. You don't become "exceptional" just because you say you are. Those who are truly exceptional don't have to say it, it's self-evident because of their actions. The actions of the people of the United States today, taken as a whole, cannot be described as exceptional, except that in some ways they are exceptionally bad. And we're getting the government (and economy) we deserve because of it.

OK, that expalins a lot.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

There are some elements that remain from the founding that continue to make the country exceptional. There is still more freedom here than anywhere else in certain areas, particularly those covered by the Bill of Rights. But those freedoms are eroding by the day. It is a testimony to the genius of the system that was created that it has survived as long as it has, but when the people no longer defend or even understand it, it cannot last much longer. In the case of Obamacare, the people tried to defend their freedoms, but those in power (including a Supreme Court justice put there by the Republicans) closed ranks and thwarted them. That's a sign that freedom is disappearing, and tyranny is returning.

Wow. That's beyond a stretch. How you can equate the lukewarm validation of a healthcare insurance plan with the impending collapse of the republic is beyond ny ability to even comment. It's just bizarre.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

As for the issue at hand, there are valid arguments to be made about the rightness or wrongness of various U.S. military actions. To me, there are no valid arguments to be made that justify the actions of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. To me, the fact that others don't see it that way is a sign of moral and intellectual corruption.

Is this a case of "my country right or wrong", or more a case of "my country right as always"?

"Justification" of al-Qaeda's actions is not only impossible but pointless. Explanation of those actions, however, may help us understand how we can stop them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You can if you don't care to demonstrate with even a shred of argument, reason or evidence that you have a clue what you're talking about. Why would it be difficult to extricate ourselves from the Middle East, assuming we're willing to abandon both our "special" relationship with Israel and control of the oil supply?

We can agree to those conditions, but I doubt they can be sold to even 20% of the electorate. People have been raised from birth to place Israel in a special status. That won't change quickly if ever. And oil? I doubt you will find even 20% willing to risk $10/gallon gasoline ... and that will be the counter argument.

It may be a bit tenuous, but the US is still a democratic republic. There still has to be acquiesence, and there's nothing like fear to destroy the mood.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can agree to those conditions, but I doubt they can be sold to even 20% of the electorate. People have been raised from birth to place Israel in a special status. That won't change quickly if ever. And oil? I doubt you will find even 20% willing to risk $10/gallon gasoline ... and that will be the counter argument.

It may be a bit tenuous, but the US is still a democratic republic. There still has to be acquiesence, and there's nothing like fear to destroy the mood.

If we choose not to do it, that's different from saying "we can't." And if we choose not to do it, then we will have to live with the consequences, which we're seeing right now.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

My brother (who runs "Mormons for Obama") pointed out that at least with "clutching their guns" Obama was expressing his frustration at trying to reach folks like that. Romney (my distant cousin, embarrassingly) is writing off several overlapping slices of the electorate that he sees as "them".

That is what a lot of folks are missing in the comparison - Obama wanting to reach out vs Romney writing off.

Here's a pretty good summary of who the 47% are -

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-attacked.html

Who Are the 47 Percent? 7 Facts about the Americans Mitt Romney Attacked

- 2/3's of them pay federal payroll taxes - some of these pay a higher tax rate that what Romney paid for the one year he revealed

- about 3000 of them are extremely rich; the 0.1% making over $2 million per year; for those tax years Romney has not revealed, he is probable one of these himself. Also, ironic is that the fund raiser was held at the home of a well-known hedge fund manager with $50K per plate; likely most of the donors Mittens was talking to are also in the 47% that pay no federal income tax

- a majority of the 47% are projected to begin paying federal income taxes as their circumstances change

- about 10% are people on SS which is not federally taxed; a lot of those people vote Republican

- Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of people who pay no income tax, nine are red states.

- Many of the 47% are in their teens or twenties, still in school or just starting out in the working world

I would include that the latter bullet includes many of the extremely low-paid grunts and jarheads in the military including those fighting in Afghanistan or guarding our Embassies. Real nice for Mittens to write them off.